Mailing-List: contact yarn-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:23:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Mayank Bansal (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: yarn-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12760314.1418085596000.94174.1421346215946@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12760314.1418085596000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12760314.1418085596000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12760314.1418085596342@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (YARN-2933) Capacity Scheduler preemption policy
 should only consider capacity without labels temporarily
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14279056#comment-14279056 ] 

Mayank Bansal commented on YARN-2933:
-------------------------------------

Thanks [~jianhe] and [~wangda] for the review

bq. looks good overall, we should use priority.AMCONTAINER here ?

It was Confusing by name , I changed the names and updated accordingly.

bq. it's better to use enum type instead of int in mockContainer, which can avoid call getValue() from enum.
Priority is been override in multiple tests differently so didn't want to change the signature of the functions, Moreover its same.

Uploading the updated patch

Thanks,
Mayank

> Capacity Scheduler preemption policy should only consider capacity without labels temporarily
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-2933
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2933
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: capacityscheduler
>            Reporter: Wangda Tan
>            Assignee: Mayank Bansal
>         Attachments: YARN-2933-1.patch, YARN-2933-2.patch, YARN-2933-3.patch, YARN-2933-4.patch, YARN-2933-5.patch, YARN-2933-6.patch, YARN-2933-7.patch, YARN-2933-8.patch
>
>
> Currently, we have capacity enforcement on each queue for each label in CapacityScheduler, but we don't have preemption policy to support that. YARN-2498 is targeting to support preemption respect node labels, but we have some gaps in code base, like queues/FiCaScheduler should be able to get usedResource/pendingResource, etc. by label. These items potentially need to refactor CS which we need spend some time carefully think about.
> For now, what immediately we can do is allow calculate ideal_allocation and preempt containers only for resources on nodes without labels, to avoid regression like: A cluster has some nodes with labels and some not, assume queueA isn't satisfied for resource without label, but for now, preemption policy may preempt resource from nodes with labels for queueA, that is not correct.
> Again, it is just a short-term enhancement, YARN-2498 will consider preemption respecting node-labels for Capacity Scheduler which is our final target. 


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)